Skip to main content
Disciplines
Automotive Business IT + Informatics Construction + Real Estate Electrical Engineering + Electronics Energy + Sustainability Insurance + Risk Finance + Banking Management + Leadership Marketing + Sales Mechanical Engineering + Materials
Events
DE
EN
Books
Journals
Topic Page
Marketing
Start single access now
Access for companies
EXTENDED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Published in:
Trust in the European Union: What Is It and How Does It Matter? Read chapter Read first chapter

2019 | OriginalPaper | Chapter

Mutual Trust in Civil Justice Cooperation in the EU

Author : Eva Storskrubb

Published in: Trust in the European Union in Challenging Times

Publisher: Springer International Publishing

Log in

Activate our intelligent search to find suitable subject content or patents.

search-config
loading …

Abstract

Storskrubb analyses trust between national legal systems in the context of the European Union’s policy for judicial cooperation in civil matters. The overarching and challenging question that arises is whether protection of individual rights can be sacrificed for a presumption of trust. The answer, according to the author, has implications for the broader legitimacy of the Union. Given the time it takes for legal cultures to establish confidence among institutions and actors, trust in the EU will corrode if confidence in mutual recognition is simply presumed to exist. In Storskrubb’s view, member states are not yet ready for a full harmonisation of legal procedures. Nevertheless, mutual trust would benefit from a dialogue on best practices to achieve effective legal systems.

Dont have a licence yet? Then find out more about our products and how to get one now:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 102.000 Bücher
  • über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Automobil + Motoren
  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
  • Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
  • Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

inform now

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 67.000 Bücher
  • über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Versicherung + Risiko




Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

inform now
previous chapter The Question of Trust in EU Criminal Law Cooperation: A Constitutional Perspective
next chapter The Importance of Trust in a Digital Europe: Reflections on the Sharing Economy and Blockchains
Footnotes
1
The term ‘civil justice’ can also be held to encompass further and broader civil procedural developments in the EU such as the procedural rules for consumer or competition matters, but the focus in this chapter is directed at cross-border civil litigation (Storskrubb, 2017a, 2017b).
 
2
See also Weller (2015) on the development of recognition of foreign judgments and the tools for retaining control in traditional bilateral or multilateral private international law cooperation.
 
3
See Article 31 of the Brussels I (recast) Regulation.
 
4
An anti-suit injunction is issued against the party in question, in personam (Storskrubb, 2016c).
 
5
See Articles 29 and 34 in the Brussels Convention. In relation to jurisdiction, the court of enforcement may only refuse enforcement if the judgment of the court of origin conflicts with exclusive grounds of jurisdiction or special protective grounds of jurisdiction has been applied correctly, according to Article 28 of the Convention.
 
6
Under the system of the Regulation, recognition and enforcement are two separate concepts. Recognition entails that a judgment can be directly invoked before the authorities of another EU member state without any special procedure of recognition being required. Nevertheless, for enforcement, a separate procedure has formerly been required under the Regulation. The grounds for refusal are the same for both. When the term ‘mutual recognition of judgments’ is used to denote a regulatory method, it may be used in a more generic sense and both concepts may be included.
 
7
See regulations (EC) No 805/2004, [2004] OJ L 143/15; (EC) No 1896/2006, [2006] OJ L 399/1; (EC) No 861/2007, [2007] OJ L 199/1; and (EU) No 655/2014, [2014] OJ L 189/59.
 
8
See regulations (EC) No 2201/2003, [2001] OJ L 12/1; and (EC) No 4/2009, [2009] OJ L 7/1.
 
9
In addition, case Pebros Servizi Srl v Aston Martin Lagonda Ltd, C-511/14, has confirmed that the notion of ‘uncontested’ in the Regulation is to be assessed autonomously.
 
10
See, for example, case C-470/07.
 
11
See inter alia case C-681/13 and C-559/14.
 
12
See case C-470/07.
 
13
See case C-61/10.
 
14
See case C-559/14.
 
15
See also cases C-211/10 and C-195/08.
 
16
See case C-491/10.
 
17
The European Law Institute (ELI) and Unidroit commenced a project in 2014 on European Principles of Civil Procedure (see: http://​www.​europeanlawinsti​tute.​eu/​projects/​). The European Parliament’s Legal Affairs Committee had, at the time of writing, decided to prepare its own report on the project and has also issues an own initiative report on minimum procedural standards. The European Commission has also initiated a study on national procedural laws and practices.
 
Literature
Andersson, T. (2005). Harmonization and mutual recognition: How to handle mutual distrust. In M. Andenas, B. Hess, & P. Oberhammer (Eds.), Enforcement agency practice in Europe. British Institute of International and Comparative Law.
Blobel, F., & Späth, P. (2005). The tale of multilateral trust and the European law of civil procedure. European Law Review, 30, 528–545.
Bogdan, M. (2007). The Brussels/Lugano lis pendens rule and the ‘Italian torpedo’. Scandinavian Studies in Law, 51, 89–97.
Cambien, N. (2017). Mutual recognition and mutual trust in the internal market. European Papers, 2(1), 93–116.
Chalmers, D., et al. (2014). European Union law (3rd ed.). Cambridge University Press.
Dori, A. (2015). The EU Justice Scoreboard: Judicial evaluation as a new governance tool. Max Planck Institute Luxemburg Working Paper, no. 2.
Düsterhaus, D. (2015). Judicial coherence in the area of freedom, security and justice—Squaring mutual trust with effective judicial protection. Review of European Administrative Law, 8(2), 151–182.CrossRef
Düsterhaus, D. (2017). In the court(s) we trust—A procedural solution to the mutual trust dilemma. Freedom Security & Justice: European Legal Studies, 1(1), 26–44.
Emaus, J. (2017). The interaction between mutual trust, mutual recognition and fundamental rights. European Papers, 2(1), 117–140.
European Commission. (2009). Green Paper on the review of Council Regulation. (EC) 44/2001, COM(2009) 175, Brussels, 21 April 2009.
European Commission. (2010). Proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and the Council on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters. COM(2010) 748 final, Brussels, 14 December 2010.
European Commission. (2016). Proposal for a Council Regulation on jurisdiction, the recognition and enforcement of decisions in matrimonial matters and the matters of parental responsibility, and on international child abduction (recast). COM(2016) 411 final, Brussels, 30 June 2016.
European Commission. (2017). The 2017 EU Justice Scoreboard. Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Central Bank, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions. COM(2017) 167 final, Brussels, 10 April 2017.
European Council. (2014). Extract from the 26–27 June 2014 European Council Conclusions concerning the area of freedom, security and justice and some related horizontal issues. OJ C 240/13, 24 July 2014.
Frackowiak-Adamska, A. (2015). Time for a European ‘full faith and credit clause’. Common Market Law Review, 52(1), 191–218.
Hartley, T. (2015). Anti-suit injunctions in support of arbitration: West Tankers still afloat. International and Comparative Law Quarterly, 64(4), 965–975.CrossRef
Hartnell, E. (2002). EUstitia: Institutionalising justice in the European Union. Northwestern Journal of International Law and Business, 23(1), 65–138.
Hazelhurst, M. (2017). Free movement of civil judgments in the European Union and the right to a fair trial. Springer.
Jänterä-Jareborg, M. (2016). The Nordic input on the EU’s cooperation in family and succession law: Exporting Union law through ‘Nordic exceptions’. In B. Hess, M. Bergström, & E. Storskrubb (Eds.), EU civil justice: Current issues and future outlook. Oxford: Hart Publishing.
Kramer, X. E. (2011). Cross-border enforcement in the EU: Mutual trust versus fair trial? Towards principles of European civil procedure. International Journal of Procedural Law, 2, 202–230.
Kramer, X. E. (2013). Procedure matters: Construction and deconstructivism in European civil procedure. Erasmus Law Lectures, no. 33.
Lavenex, S. (2007). Mutual recognition and the monopoly of force: Limits of the single market analogy. Journal of European Public Policy, 14(5), 762–779.CrossRef
Linton, M. (2016). Abolition of exequatur, all the name of mutual trust. In B. Hess, M. Bergström, & E. Storskrubb (Eds.), EU civil justice: Current issues and future outlook. Oxford: Hart Publishing.
Marguery, T. (2017). Je t’aime moi non plus the Avotiņš v. Latvia judgment: An answer from the ECrtHR to the CJEU. Review of European Administrative Law, 10(1), 113–134.CrossRef
Mitsilegas, V. (2012). The limits of mutual trust in Europe’s area of freedom, security and justice: From automatic inter-state cooperation to the slow emergence of the individual. Yearbook of European Law, 31(1), 319–372.CrossRef
Moraru, M. (2016). ‘Mutual trust’ from the perspective of national courts: A test in creative legal thinking. In D. Gerard & E. Brouwer (Eds.), Mapping mutual trust: Understanding and informing the role of mutual trust in EU law. EUI Working Paper, no. 13.
Nicolaïdis, K. (2007). Trusting the poles? Constructing Europe through mutual recognition. Journal of European Public Policy, 14(5), 682–698.CrossRef
Official Journal of the European Communities. (2001). Programme of measures to implement the principle of mutual recognition of decisions in criminal matters. 2001/C 12/02, 15 January 2001.
Paul, J. R. (2008). The transformation of international comity. Duke Law and Contemporary Problems, 71(19), 19–38.
Prechal, S. (2017). Mutual trust before the court of justice of the European Union. European Papers, 2(1), 75–92.
Requejo Isidro, M. (2016). On the abolition of exequatur. In B. Hess, M. Bergström, & E. Storskrubb (Eds.), EU civil justice: Current issues and future outlook. Oxford: Hart Publishing.
Roth, W.-H. (2017). Mutual recognition. In P. Koutrakos & J. Snell (Eds.), Research handbook on the law of the EU’s internal market. Edward Elgar.
Schmidt, S. (2007). Mutual recognition as a new mode of governance. Journal of European Public Policy, 14(5), 667–681.CrossRef
Silvestri, E. (2014). Goals of civil justice when nothing works: The case of Italy. In A. Uzelac (Ed.), Goals of civil justice and civil procedure in contemporary judicial systems. Springer.
Snell, J. (2014). The internal market and philosophies of integration. In C. Barnard & S. Peers (Eds.), European Union law. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Snell, J. (2016). The single market: Does mutual trust suffice? In D. Gerard & E. Brouwer (Eds.), Mapping mutual trust: Understanding and informing the role of mutual trust in EU law. EUI Working Paper, no. 13.
Storskrubb, E. (2008). Civil procedure and EU law: A policy area uncovered. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRef
Storskrubb, E. (2011). Ordre public in EU civil justice—Lessons from arbitration? In Festskrift till Gustaf Möller—Juridisk Tidskrift Finland, no. 2–4.
Storskrubb, E. (2016a). Mutual recognition as a governance strategy for civil justice? In B. Hess, M. Bergström, & E. Storskrubb (Eds.), EU civil justice: Current issues and future outlook. Oxford: Hart Publishing.
Storskrubb, E. (2016b). Mutual trust and the limits of abolishing exequatur in civil justice. In D. Gerard & E. Brouwer (Eds.), Mapping mutual trust: Understanding and informing the role of mutual trust in EU law. EUI Working Paper, no. 13.
Storskrubb, E. (2016c). Gazprom OAO v. Lietuvos Republika: A victory for arbitration? European Law Review, 41(4), 578–589.
Storskrubb, E. (2017a). Civil justice: Constitutional and regulatory issues revisited. In M. Fletcher, E. Herlin-Karnell, & C. Matera (Eds.), The European Union as an area of freedom, security and justice. London: Routledge.
Storskrubb, E. (2017b). Några tankar om hur EU-rättens tentakler genomtränger processrätten. In Festskrift till Dan Frände—Juridisk Tidskrift Finland, no. 2–4 (pp. 360–383).
Weller, M. (2015). Mutual trust: In search of the future of European Union private international law. Journal of Private International Law, 11(1), 64–102.
Whytock, C. (2014). Faith and scepticism in private international law: Trust, governance, politics, and foreign judgments. Erasmus Law Journal, 3, 113–124.
Metadata
Title
Mutual Trust in Civil Justice Cooperation in the EU
Author
Eva Storskrubb
Copyright Year
2019
Book
Trust in the European Union in Challenging Times

Print ISBN: 978-3-319-73856-7

Electronic ISBN: 978-3-319-73857-4

Copyright Year: 2019

DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-73857-4_8

Premium Partner

    Image Credits